Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Over the weekend, an article ran stating that TSA Officers in Boston had stopped medical supplies from traveling in checked baggage to Cape Verde. The article states the items confiscated included Tylenol, vitamin C, mosquito repellents, hand sanitizers and rubbing alcohol.

TSA did prevent most of the insect repellant, but everything else was permitted. Why the repellant? Well…

FAA regulations state that Personal Care Items containing hazardous materials (e.g., flammable perfume, aerosols) totaling no more than 70 ounces may be carried on board. Contents of each container may not exceed 16 fluid ounces.

The repellant was in 6.5oz containers (approx), and most bags contained more than the limit of 10 or 11 cans ranging from 2-128 cans over the limit. Most bags were large suitcase bags completely full of just bug spray.

In cases such as these, TSA is required to return the entire bag (s) to the airline so they can remove the hazmat. In this case, due to the high volume of items, TSA Boston worked with air TACV representatives in the baggage screening location to ensure the 70oz rule was followed for each bag.

Our officers followed the proper protocol spelled out by the FAA and included in our SOPs. If anybody else plans to take items such as insect repellent to Cape Verde to help with the Dengue fever, it is highly recommended an alternate shipping method is found so the items will be permitted. Our thoughts go out to the people of Cape Verde.

35 comments:

Our thoughts go out to the people of Cape Verde. - yeah, right. Not. If they did go out to them then a way would have been found to get these hugely important drugs to the people that need them.

I still beleive the TSA was set up for the right reasons but is now set up as job creation / protection scheme and crazy stories like this show just what a bunch of "jobsworths" many of the TSA staff really are. For Shame TSA.

Funny how, in all of his recent pushbacks against criticisms of TSA, Bob hasn't addressed the GAO report that concludes that TSA has failed to follow an exceptional number of "best practice" guidelines regarding the implementation of new technology. The TSA has consistently failed to conduct risk assessments, cost-benefit analyses, and operational testing regarding multiple checkpoint technologies.

The GAO findings can be generalized to other TSA procedures. Many of the policies that make TSA the most hated part of the government, like the shoe carnival and liquids nonsense, have been implemented without testing or evaluation.

@ Parkylondon, anonymous and all the other individuals who will (un)intentionally misread this story: The guidelines regarding dangerous items was/is created and maintained by the FAA. Not TSA. The TSA officers were following protocols established by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). If you disagree with the threat assessed to hazardous materials/flammable liquids over a specified limit being contained on a passenger aircraft, perhaps you should comment on the FAA blog (if there is one). TSA routinely assists doctors and organizations in transporting necessities; however, the regulations which applied in this case protect the passengers and crew onboard the aircraft. It is the responsibility of the organization involved to properly arrange safe passage for any supplies they need to transport.

Last night FORCV interviewed the General Manager of TACV, Cape Verde Airlines, in Boston about this incident and published an updated version of this story. Please, see it at www.forcv.com:

Correction: (Updated November 9, 2009):UPDATED: TACV Passengers Not Allowed to Travel With Large Amount of Mosquito Repellents and Hand Sanitizers

"After a phone interview with Mr. Alexandre Furtado, TACV General Manager in the U.S., FORCV decided to re-edit the story about the incident with TACV passengers last Friday at the Boston Logan airport with a more accurate account. This update also includes clarifications about the guidelines to carry mosquito repellents, hand sanitizers, and medicines on plane..."

You can tell that this rule is from the FAA and not TSA because it actually makes sense and is beneficial. Still, you seem to be gilding the lily to say that you actually sent it back to the airline, as they are the correct body to enforce the rule about flammable liquids.

It is interesting that Bob didn't use a link to the actual FAA rule, since they are actually published unlike TSA's made-up-after-the-fact lies.

During my lifetime I've seen too many accidents created by well-meaning people reacting to a humanitarian disaster. Hazardous materials improperly stowed, weight/balance problems, human error can kill the rescuer, benefiting no one.

As much as one may dislike TSA, following hazmat rules is just common sense.

Whenever I need a daily dose of bass-ackwards "logical reasoning" and unintentionally (?) humorous "just following orders", I can be sure the TSA blog will deliver. Let's see, in the last few days we've had "ice is a solid but water is a liquid" and "bug spray is hazmat, denied".

Has anyone tried the frozen water or frozen toiletries trick yet? What about claiming "I have chronic dehydration, a medical condition for which the recommended treatment is water. My bottle of water is a medically necessary liquid."

Quote from Anonymous: "As much as one may dislike TSA, following hazmat rules is just common sense."

Since explosives would be HAZMAT and TSA doesn't follow HAZMAT rules with regards to disposing of "hazardous" liquids at the checkpoint, can we assume that TSA thinks they're really nonthreatening? If so, why can't we take them on the plane?

@Anonymous: "Because you would simply be told, "You can purchase it after the Checkpoint - see ya."

See, it's people like you that insist on trying to get around rules instead of following them that cause problems for everyone else."

No, it's idiots in TSA management that is causing problems for everyone else with no real evidence of a threat. After all, as Robert Johnson said, if the liquids are such a threat, why doesn't TSA treat them as hazmat? Seems to me that if the liquids are as dangerous as TSA makes them out to be, their casual treatment puts everyone in danger.

In the absence of a real threat, there's no reason that anyone should have to pay $3 for a bottle of water that can be brought from a grocery store for 25 cents. I'd rather use my money for something else rather than lining Hudson News's pockets.

Now, now, TSO Reed. Is that video peer reviewed? Can't accept it if it isn't peer reviewed. Did the guy who made it do everything the way the terrorists, I mean, misunderstood, oppressed peoples, would? Otherwise it doesn't mean anything.

.....So your argument that this information isn't accurate is that some lawyers couldn't prove that it wasn't a viable threat? British lawyers and scientists in their courts aren't good enough or something? Your acting like they didn't do any research or something. I am not seeing the point to your argument at all.

Sorry Jannis and TSO Reed. I was being sarcastic. I don't personnally believe that things need to be peer reviewed to be true. I was referring to the multiple post by others that constantly demand peer review before they will accept a claim.

Who is still think this so ridiculous? The TSA folks did exactly what they should have done, and no one, from lifetime residents to visiting tourists, should have thought that carrying large quantities of such things would not have made the people responsible for security at least a little curious.

It is to bad that medical supplies have to be sent in other ways to get them in the country. There are folks who really need them. Thankfully there are companies that can send them priority and avoid he search and seizure which has been the fate for many drugs.